Search for: "*robinson v. Chief of Police"
Results 21 - 40
of 134
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2021, 7:37 am
Justice Robinson dissents on the behavioral-traits piece. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am
James McConville, chief of staff for the U.S. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 1:28 pm
State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 3:15 am
There’s a good reason for that refusal, according to Robinson: [I]t is one thing to require prosecutors to inquire about whether police have turned up exculpatory or impeachment evidence during their investigation. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 3:33 pm
" [Sam Robinson, a Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor] testified that the congregate limits were designed to prevent "mega-spreading events. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 3:55 am
” Briefly: Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson write at Bloomberg Law that, “[r]eflecting on their historic livestream experiment, U.S. [read post]
4 May 2020, 10:20 am
Chief Judge McGee dissented on each point. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 7:02 am
Chief among them is Andrus v. [read post]
7 Jul 2019, 4:23 pm
Surveillance Police Professional had a piece on the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), attacking the findings of a report it commissioned after independent researchers urged the force to stop testing facial recognition technology. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 4:09 pm
Patricia Londono on UKHRB, “Sir Cliff v BBC: A new era for police investigations? [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 7:09 am
Although both charges were ultimately dropped after the police chief deemed them unfounded, Spangler was soon demoted from watch commander, a position he had held for four years, down to street sergeant; his pay rate was reduced. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 11:53 am
” An early example is Robinson v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:36 am
” Briefly: First Mondays (podcast) recaps the second week of the March sitting, including “what the Chief’s opinion in Hall v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 1:21 am
This decision was less of a surprise than Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 – given the strength of the earlier judgments both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 4:40 am
Robinson certainly amounts to a potentially significant area of liability on police forces that will be an unwelcome development for forces already dealing with the ramifications of budget cuts. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 3:40 am
It has never been in dispute that the police can be liable in tort to those injured as a direct result of acts or omissions by the police: see, for example Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1989] AC 53, [59B-C]. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 2:48 am
Police liability in negligence positively narrowed In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court made significant inroads into the principle that the police cannot be sued in negligence save in exceptional circumstances as a result of alleged failures in their core operational duties. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:39 am
The case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 is not authority for the proposition that the police enjoy a general immunity from suit in respect of anything done by them in the course of investigating or preventing crime. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
